Atheist Realism?

[greenberg]

It is not an issue of fear but an exercise in pointlessness when the examiner has asserted you are wrong before you begin. I see no rational discourse in such an approach.

I disagree. The OP merely stated what is otherwise implied - namely that when input is asked for, it is to be expected that it will be challenged.

This is a discussion and debate forum.
Anyone posting here should expect that what they say will be challenged.
This is how discussions and debates can take place to begin with.

 

[synthesizer-patel]

I disagree. The OP merely stated what is otherwise implied - namely that when input is asked for, it is to be expected that it will be challenged.

This is a discussion and debate forum.
Anyone posting here should expect that what they say will be challenged.
This is how discussions and debates can take place to begin with.

No - the OP implies that (s)he knows what's going to be said before its been said - that's plain predjudice - not the most insidious kind of predjudice admittedly but predjudice nonetheless - it immediately alerts any potential posters that they are dealing with a lightweight, and therefore they are less inclined to participate in the discussion.

 

[Cris]

SAM,

That said, if you are unable to defend your idea for fear of hostility, thats another, personal issue. One does not need to convince an ally as much as one needs to convince an opponent.

You are still missing the point. Why even prepare to defend a position when told whatever you say will not be accepted anyway?

 

[Enmos]

Reality and all the objects in it exists completely independent of the mind.
I call this objective reality.
No observer can perceive objective reality directly. Perception is necessarily colored by interpretation, expectation, etc.
We make up our own version of reality in our mind which is based on (part) of objective reality, let's refer to it as subjective reality.

Some people here have argued that it is impossible to know whether objective reality exists because of it's own premises. I disagree.
We know the senses aren't perfect. For instance, the eye can only sense a small portion of the electromagnetic spectrum.
We also know that some animals can perceive more of the spectrum than we can.
The same goes for all the other senses: smell, hearing, touch and taste.
So we know, as an objective fact, that the senses can only sense a specific portion of objective reality.

When our brain is fed this data it interprets it based on:
- memory of previous experiences;
- character, which is the product of in part genetic but mostly environmental circumstances in our childhood;
- knowledge/believes;
- immediate environmental demands.
Then value is assigned to anything that is perceived according to above circumstances.
And so we end up with our own version of reality; subjective reality.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=78920

 

[S.A.M.]

SAM,

You are still missing the point. Why even prepare to defend a position when told whatever you say will not be accepted anyway?

Well if the only reason you want to offer an opinion is to garner acceptance, clearly you need not offer it for defense.

 

[Yorda]

reality is what we experience.

Reality and all the objects in it exists completely independent of the mind.
I call this objective reality.
No observer can perceive objective reality directly.

since we can never experience a reality outside our mind, there's no reason to assume that there is something "out there". the thing that we call "outside" is inside our mind.

there is no me (mind) that is separate from the world. there is only a world and this "i" is a part of it.

 

[Enmos]

Only if you are an idiot.

 

[orcot]

Does anyone had any luck defining what religion exactly is?
I actuealy heard a good one tonight but it also applied to superman and we didn't seem to get it to work

 

[Cris]

SAM,

Well if the only reason you want to offer an opinion is to garner acceptance, clearly you need not offer it for defense.

In a balanced open minded debate if one has done due diligence to the issue then one expects both some degree of acknowledgment and appropriate critique.

The opening post implied neither.

 

[Cris]

Ronan,

I would like to know the belief of atheists on what consitute reality
what is reality for them?

From the atheist perspective of a disbelief in theist claims then the atheist would not find the theist concept that God represents reality a credible proposition.

What else atheists might consider reality will likely have an unlimited number of alternative and potentially conflicting perceptions and in many cases no perception at all. Since there is no atheist agenda outside of a disbelief in gods then having a multitude of perceptions is dubious.

For the theist their god is reality, or that reality is defined by that god. Nothing more need be said.

Outside of a theist paradigm reality could be defined many ways.

 

[synthesizer-patel]

Ronan,

From the atheist perspective of a disbelief in theist claims then the atheist would not find the theist concept that God represents reality a credible proposition.

What else atheists might consider reality will likely have an unlimited number of alternative and potentially conflicting perceptions and in many cases no perception at all. Since there is no atheist agenda outside of a disbelief in gods then having a multitude of perceptions is dubious.

For the theist their god is reality, or that reality is defined by that god. Nothing more need be said.

Outside of a theist paradigm reality could be defined many ways.

Indeed - below is a theist's notion of reality which differs very little from my own

why is there an assumption from you (Ronan) that I must see reality in any way that's different from a theist? - its my perception of UNREALITY that's likely to differ - and even then only very slightly as I only beleive in 1 less unreal entity than you do

Reality to me is inference. Perception is data, my senses and experience are the tools I use to interpret the data. The result is reality, my inference of the data accessible to my senses and interpreted by my knowledge and experience.

 

[scorpius]

I would like to know the belief of atheists on what consitute reality
what is reality for them?

Then I want to challenge their belief.

So everybody is invited but it would be better first to listen carefully to what the atheists have to say.

,reality is all that exists.

shouldnt this be in philosophy section?

 

[ronan]

Spidergoat, I agree with you about the too many way that the word "god" have been used to refer to but what is the problem if someone say to you that reality (as you descibed) is for him what he call "god"?
It is in fact a common belief for theists. I would say that theists that belief in this kind of god would be equivalent (if not the same) as atheist who believe like you in a inefable reality.
Why not agree?
It does not imply that you are a theist more than implying than theist are atheist. It is just the same belief. (which personnaly I would agree too)

Note about the word: universe
It seems that this word refers to what we observe in other word to what we can describe (galaxies, electrons, molecules, dogs...), while reality as you defined is something we cannot express.

off the top of my head.i am part of other people's reality.but to the "deep" I,I am only part of reality as a lens that distorts the information it is given.

Are you talking of a subjective reality when you refere to other people's reality?. If your deep "I" is only a lens, who is the observer?

,reality is all that exists.

I agree if you define existence as what is in reality but do you think that it does not say anything?

shouldnt this be in philosophy section?

I do not think so, I want to hear from atheist because of the often forgotten fact that they also have believes. And also as the discussion with spidergoat suggest, the atheist and theist are in fact not so different.

There are quite a few of those, with some considerable differences between them.
Which ones did you have in mind ?

I want to know all of them

Are you sure that question exists ? If I were to point out that descriptions of reality exist both with and without the inclusion of an "I" as part of them, how should that question be answered ?

good remark, that's why I think it is not correct to say that reality is what we observe, reality is beyond that, and I join spidergoat for that. It is why I ask the question: to show the fallacy of this kind of view

Ronan,

From the atheist perspective of a disbelief in theist claims then the atheist would not find the theist concept that God represents reality a credible proposition.

So you are close to any agreement?

What else atheists might consider reality will likely have an unlimited number of alternative and potentially conflicting perceptions and in many cases no perception at all. Since there is no atheist agenda outside of a disbelief in gods then having a multitude of perceptions is dubious.

For the theist their god is reality, or that reality is defined by that god. Nothing more need be said.

Outside of a theist paradigm reality could be defined many ways.

What if reality is defined as something inefable (as spidergoat, an atheist pointed out)? would god be a good word as the word reality is?

In this case I do not see why atheist refuse the theist claim that god has to exist (meaning: a reality (behind our false/partial perception) has to exist.

Please forgot the fight between atheist and theist (I agree that there are theists who believe in a external god but here I am talking about particular theist that believe in a god as a transcendental reality (Kant's noumena))

Indeed - below is a theist's notion of reality which differs very little from my own

why is there an assumption from you (Ronan) that I must see reality in any way that's different from a theist? - its my perception of UNREALITY that's likely to differ - and even then only very slightly as I only beleive in 1 less unreal entity than you do

I do not assume that you must see reality differently tahn a theist I finaly want to show you that for many theist the word god signify what atheist refers to when using the word reality.
They are then the same, these kind of theist, atheist are both realist and not anti-realist.

The "a" of a-theist is then misleading (for this kind of atheist that believe in the existence of a inefable reality) because they are not "anti"- realist.

 

[kenworth]

Are you talking of a subjective reality when you refere to other people's reality?. If your deep "I" is only a lens, who is the observer?

yes i am talking about their subjective reality.
the deep "i" would be my core functions,the observer.the "i"that is made up of my experiences is the lens.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

I would like to know the belief of atheists on what consitute reality
what is reality for them?
...
...
...

A prescence of information that is consistent, persistent, and non-contradictory.

 

[Michael]

My perception of reality is a mental construct. This is how I perceive what is real. But, as to what "reality" really is? I don't know if I can truely know.

 

[synthesizer-patel]

I finally want to show you that for many theist the word god signify what atheist refers to when using the word reality.

Well its an assumption on your part so far, as you have yet to show it - I've yet to find a theist who claims that they experience god directly through their physical senses - and no theists on this board have said anything even close to that so far.

They are then the same, these kind of theist, atheist are both realist and not anti-realist.

I agree that theists and atheists are very similar - like I said - there's only one god we disagree on the existence of - all the rest we agree 100% on - if there's that little between us we are sure to agree and share values on loads of things.

The "a" of a-theist is then misleading (for this kind of atheist that believe in the existence of a ineffable reality) because they are not "anti"- realist.

I'm not trying to be unkind, but I think you are struggling with comprehension a little.
Atheist very simply means "without god" it carries no other baggage than that - it doesn't even necessarily mean that atheists don't beleive that there is a god - it merely mean that they choose to be without god. It certainly carries no baggage on the subject of being anti-realist.

Ineffable reality is an oxymoron - if something is ineffable it means that it is incomprehensible, or too vast to be communicated - if something is real (like reality) then by its nature it is comprehensible.
The atheist tendency to be a materialist / rationalist tends to exclude the ineffable.

I just can't see you going anywhere with this.

 

[ronan]

Well its an assumption on your part so far, as you have yet to show it - I've yet to find a theist who claims that they experience god directly through their physical senses - and no theists on this board have said anything even close to that so far.

There are as many kind of atheists as there are theists and here I want to see if we can agree that some theist have the same idea of reality than some atheist (please note that I am not talking about all theist neither all atheist).

Kant view is shared by many sceintist and atheist such as spidergoat.
It is a belief in the existence of a reality that is unknowable.
The unkowability was put forward by Hume in the european tradition.

Many theist believe in an exisetnce of a god that is seen as the encompassing reality. Many of them believe in the inefability of god while many other say they never experienced god (reality as a whole) but believe in its existence.

I agree that theists and atheists are very similar - like I said - there's only one god we disagree on the existence of - all the rest we agree 100% on - if there's that little between us we are sure to agree and share values on loads of things.

if god=reality, all atheist who are realist (meaning that they believe in the existence of a reality) are in fact believing in the existence of god. (don't forget the if)

I'm not trying to be unkind, but I think you are struggling with comprehension a little.

This kind of statement should always be preceded by self reflection

Atheist very simply means "without god" it carries no other baggage than that - it doesn't even necessarily mean that atheists don't beleive that there is a god - it merely mean that they choose to be without god. It certainly carries no baggage on the subject of being anti-realist.

But if god=reality and if to be an atheist is compatible with being a realist, you have to admit that we get a contradiction. The only option is then to classify all realist as theist
but many will do not want because they say they do not believe in god. I understand this fear because of the two many usage the word "god" have been used to refer to. But here we defined "god" as refering to reality. So they should not worry.
The other consequence is that all theist that belive in this kind of god=reality are realists.

Ineffable reality is an oxymoron - if something is ineffable it means that it is incomprehensible, or too vast to be communicated - if something is real (like reality) then by its nature it is comprehensible.
The atheist tendency to be a materialist / rationalist tends to exclude the ineffable.

Ineffable reality is not an oxymoron.
Reality can be impossible to express. It is not implied by the meaning of reality that it is not ineffable. You have to prove your claim if it is.

please note that by abuse of language what is real sometime refer to what you can touch, see, etc., but here the meaning of reality that we are refering to is the Kant's noumena, the transcendental reality that kant and hume suppose we have no direct access.

I just can't see you going anywhere with this.

I am going wherever I am going, let see, I am not alone, you are also part of the journey


Let's move, I wanted to hear more of atheists,

is there some atheist that do not believe in an exisetnce of reality?
is there some atheist that believe in particular reality (composed of string, particles...)?

 

[synthesizer-patel]

There are as many kind of atheists as there are theists and here I want to see if we can agree that some theist have the same idea of reality than some atheist (please note that I am not talking about all theist neither all atheist).

So some atheists share views and values with some thesist and vice versa? For some theists this is an earth shattering revelation that they will burn you at the stake for - but not many.

Kant view is shared by many sceintist and atheist such as spidergoat.
It is a belief in the existence of a reality that is unknowable.
The unknowability was put forward by Hume in the european tradition.

Many theist believe in an existence of a god that is seen as the encompassing reality. Many of them believe in the inefability of god while many other say they never experienced god (reality as a whole) but believe in its existence.

Spidergoat says that he doesn't beleive any of us experience reality - and he has a point - our sensory inputs are very likely filtered through socialisation, experience etc - that doesn't make it unknowable - indeed there are many things included in reality that we can have a shared experience of despite our perception filters.
For example while I don't know if the colour green looks the same to everyone - I do know that if I ask someone what colour a jacket is and point to a green one, they'll tell me its green.
The emotional and physical responses to colour are similar too - for example we and many other animals have a hardwired instinct to view black and yellow animals as either poisonous, dangerous or distasteful (because they usually are).
In short, a shared and knowable reality that has nothing to do with cultural conditioning - its a result of natual selection - which in turn results from real physical and biological processes - nothing ineffable about that.
In contrast - the many thousands of different views and images of god vary massively throughout human culture, even sometimes within the same religion, and are apparently entirely absent from animal behaviour.
This suggests strongly that the concept of god is one that comes from a cultural filter / cultural conditioning and not from a shared and knowable reality.
Of course you could argue that if you distill away the cultural filters what you are left with is a kind of "god essence" - but then that would make you a pantheist or a deist - not a theist

So your "IF" god is real - is a massive and somewhat shaky IF

 

[ronan]

Of course you could argue that if you distill away the cultural filters what you are left with is a kind of "god essence" - but then that would make you a pantheist or a deist - not a theist

That a valid theist perspective!
Anyway here we are arguing about word but I maintain that is a valid theist perspective because many theist that consider themeselves theist beleve in this kind fo god (words are defined in some part by usage, I do not deny that meaning sometime have to change as I was arguing earlier but not just by saying what you say, you have to explain.)

So your "IF" god is real - is a massive and somewhat shaky IF

you transform completely my point !!!
I said: "if god=reality" not: "if god is real"
What I said meaning: if we define god as reality
please do not transform my sayings


Crunchy Cat,

A prescence of information that is consistent, persistent, and non-contradictory.

can you elaborate more?